People v. Barbour

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barbour

119 A.D.2d 584, 500 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55512

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 7, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 119 A.D.2d 584 (People v. Barbour) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Barbour, 119 A.D.2d 584, 500 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered March 10, 1982, convicting him of bribery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the court properly admitted into evidence the tape-recorded conversation between himself and Police Officer Curie. Police Officer Curie’s testimony that the tape recording was a true and accurate record of his conversation with the defendant, and that nothing had been deleted or added to the conversation, provided a sufficient foundation for the admission of the tape into evidence (see, People v McGee, 49 NY2d 48, cert denied sub nom. Waters v New York, 446 US 942; People v Arena, 48 NY2d 944; People v Tayeh, 96 AD2d 1045). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Niehoff and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered March 10, 1982, convicting him of bribery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the court properly admitted into evidence the tape-recorded conversation between himself and Police Officer Curie. Police Officer Curie’s testimony that the tape recording was a true and accurate record of his conversation with the defendant, and that nothing had been deleted or added to the conversation, provided a sufficient foundation for the admission of the tape into evidence (see, People v McGee, 49 NY2d 48, cert denied sub nom. Waters v New York, 446 US 942; People v Arena, 48 NY2d 944; People v Tayeh, 96 AD2d 1045). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Niehoff and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 584, 500 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barbour-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack